[676]. This course was taken in 1197 by Abbot Samson, whose deeds are portrayed for us by Jocelyn of Brakelond to the delight of Thomas Carlyle. See Past and Present, passim. Cf. also Pollock and Maitland, II. 355.
[677]. See Pollock and Maitland, II. 354. Examples are readily found: “When Archbishop Roger of York died in 1182, Henry II. enjoyed a windfall of £11,000, to say nothing of the spoons and saltcellars.” Pollock and Maitland, I. 504.
[678]. Royal prerogatives in the twelfth century were still elastic and undefined. Henry II. used them freely, but on the whole fairly. His sons stretched every doubtful claim to its utmost limits. The Crown was the legal heir of all Jews (cf. c. 10) and apparently of all Christian usurers as well, at least of such as died unrepentant. (See Pollock and Maitland, II. 486, and authorities there cited.) It is interesting in this connection to note that the making of a will was looked on as a necessary condition of a usurer’s repentance. (See Dialogus de Scaccario, 224–5, nn.) The king, further, took the goods of all who died a felon’s death (cf. c. 32) and of men who committed suicide (itself a felony). John, so we may infer from Magna Carta, went further, and appropriated the chattels of all intestates. Were there any precedents from his father’s reign for this wider claim? Madox (I. 346) cites an entry from the Pipe Polls of 1172, recording 60 marks due the exchequer as the value of the chattels of an intestate; and, two years later, mention is made de pecunia Gilleberti qui obiit intestatus. There is nothing to show whether such men were, or were not, usurers. The Pope was another competitor for the personal estates of intestate clerks. In 1246, he issued an edict making this demand. Even Henry III. (dependent and ally of Rome as he was) protested, and the edict was withdrawn. (See Pollock and Maitland, II. 357.)
[679]. Cf. Pollock and Maitland, II. 355. “This clause, though it was deliberately withdrawn, seems to have settled the law.”
[680]. This chapter should be compared with a corresponding provision in the Charter of Liberties granted by Henry I. William Rufus, like John, had evidently helped himself freely to the chattels of intestates. Henry I. (c. 7) made what seems to be merely a partial renunciation of this right: where the deceased had been prevented “by arms or infirmity” from making his will, his relations and vassals might distribute his goods for him. Are we to infer that Henry reserved the right to seize them in all other events? Stephen, in his second or Oxford Charter (cf. supra, p. 121 and appendix), clearly and unambiguously resigned all such rights, as far as the property of churchmen was concerned. Si vero morte preoccupatus fuerit, pro salute anime ejus ecclesie consilio eadem fiat distributio. He also confirmed full rights of making wills to churchmen. We have already seen that his successors did not observe these provisions. (See supra, pp. 383-4, and also Pollock and Maitland, 1. 503.)
CHAPTER TWENTY-EIGHT.
Nullus constabularius, vel alius ballivus noster, capiat blada vel alia catalla alicujus, nisi statim inde reddat denarios, aut respectum inde habere possit de voluntate venditoris.
No constable or other bailiff of ours shall take corn or other provisions from any one without immediately tendering money therefor, unless he can have postponement[postponement] thereof by permission of the seller.
This chapter is the first of several which redressed abuses springing from one root, namely, the exercise of the royal right of purveyance by the various agents of the local government.
I. Purveyance in General. The Norman and Angevin kings of England were compelled by their administrative duties and induced by the pleasures of the chase to move their courts constantly from district to district. During these royal progresses the difficulties must have been great of finding sufficient food for the enormous retinues surrounding the king in times of peace, and for his armed levies in time of war. It was to the interests of the community as a whole that the work of government and of national defence should not be brought to a stand-still for want of supplies. No opposition was made when the king arrogated to himself the privilege of appropriating, under fair conditions, such necessaries as his household might require. Such a right, not unlike that enjoyed in modern times by the commander of an army encamped in an enemy’s country, was allowed to the kings of England in their own land in times of peace, and was known as the prerogative of purveyance.[[681]] Unfortunately, the conditions under which supplies might be requisitioned were left vague: the privilege was therefore subject to constant abuse. In theory it was always spoken of as merely a right of pre-emption; the provisions seized were to be paid for at the market rate: but practice tended to differ lamentably from theory. In the absence of a neutral arbitrator to fix the value of the goods, the unfortunate seller was often thankful to accept any pittance offered by royal officials, who might subsequently indeed charge a higher rate against the Crown. Payment was often indefinitely delayed or made not in coin but in exchequer tallies, “a vexatious anticipation of taxation,” since these could only be used in payment of Crown dues. What was worse, in the hurry of the moment, the king’s purveyors often omitted the formality of paying altogether.